The criticism is evidently written by a well-meaning and well- informed scientific physician of the Old School. It begins with the erroneous statement: “This work enjoys a very high reputation in its native country.” No doubt the critics remark refers to the author, nor to the book
Had the disease of childhood without any sequelae; remained well to his thirtieth year, when he came under allopathic treatment for a fever. Twelve years ago he had tertian intermittent, which was successfully treated by Dr. Hartmann, homoeopath. Since then his health had been tolerably good, but he began hard during the last months, since when his present symptoms have made their appearance.
As long as the physicians of this country sought fame in studying the natural history of their most important medicines, found here in great abundance, they sought to master these precious adjuncts to their materia medica. Those were the days in which young students, about to become doctors, wrote their dissertations upon native plants the days of Bigelow and Barton.
In conclusion I must make mention of the controversy between philosophers in reference to analogy and deductions by analogy. Reasoning by analogy I have always claimed to be the only correct method. It is the golden theory of Pythagoras, by which heaven and earth are unlocked. Nevertheless, like the law of quadrature of triangles, it has been dubbed Pons asinorum by dunces.